COAL? YES!

Nonsense! The biggest health hazard of all is lack of energy; we are pro-energy, and therefore pro-coal, for there are no choices: For present large-scale energy conversion, there is only coal and nuclear. Gas and oil is kept underground by price controls (and should ideally, be used as petrochemical feedstock, not as a common fuel); hydropower is running out of sites; and the rest is not enough to power the presses on which the bilge about it is being printed.

Yes, there may come the day when energy is so plentiful that we have the luxury of a choice, and on that day we may very well, for the first time, turn against coal.

If that worries you, friends just don't bequeathe a subscription to your grandchildren.

And speaking of coal, consider surface mining. We see no reason to condemn it in general, and plenty to commend it.

Not all strip mining is of the West Virginia kind; there are many cases where temporarily strip-mined land has not just been restored, but remarkably improved. Much of the lowsulfur coal in the West lies in thick, broad seems close under the surface some of it cannot be mined any other way, and the rest is dangerous for deep-mining. Deep-mining also leaves about half of the coal in place within the mined volume as the Natural Resource Council would counsel if it cared about the defense of natural resources. Losing range land? Even with maximum development, the land lost temporarily would support about 0.2% of the cattle now in the region. Temporarily, because in many places one can irrigate with the gained energy and support more cattle than before. Besides reclamation of the land is already regulated by all states concerned - Udall's strip mining bills (which will doubtlessly surface again in the new Congress) would do little for the environment, but a lot for the federal bureaucracy's obesity

And there are other reasons write Natural Resources, Environment and Energy Section, US Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street N.W., Washington, DC 20062.